GMAT作文范文及解析：航空公司行李处理流程
The following appeared in an Avia Airlines departmental memorandum.
“On average, 9 out of every 1,000 passengers who traveled on Avia Airlines last year filed a complaint about our baggage-handling procedures. This means that although some 1 percent of our passengers were unhappy with those procedures, the overwhelming majority were quite satisfied with them; thus it would appear that a review of the procedures is not important to our goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia’s passengers.”
Avia航空的部门备忘录：
平均地，去年乘坐Avia的1000个乘客中有9个针对我们的行李处理流程写了投诉信。这说明虽然有大约1%的乘客对这一流程表示不满，乘客的主体对它还是满意的。所以对流程的重新审查对我们要保持和提高Avia的乘客数这一目标不是很重要的。
1去年是这样今年呢以后呢?
2很有可能是乘客对服务不满意却没时间正式申诉
3和别的航空公司比较如何seriousness trivailize
1， 没有complaint不代表没有不满。
2， 没有跟其他公司对比，同时并不知道总数。
The conclusion in this Avia Airlines memorandum is that a review of the airline’s baggage-handling procedures will not further its goal of maintaining or increasing the number of Avia passengers. The author’s line of reasoning is that the great majority of Avia passengers are happy with baggage handling at the airline because only one percent of passengers who traveled on Avia last year filed a complaint about Avia’s procedures. This argument is problematic in two important respects.
First, the argument turns on the assumption that the 99 percent of Avia passengers who did not complain were happy with the airline’s baggage-handling procedures. However, the author provides no evidence to support this assumption. The fact that, on the average, 9 out of 1000 passengers took the time and effort to formally complain indicates nothing about the experiences or attitudes of the remaining 991. It is possible that many passengers were displeased but too busy to formally complain, while others had no opinion at all. Lacking more complete information about passengers’ attitudes, we cannot assume that the great majority of passengers who did not complain were happy.
Secondly, in the absence of information about the number of passengers per flight and about the complaint records of competing airlines, the statistics presented in the memorandum might distort the seriousness of the problem. Given that most modern aircraft carry as many as 300 to 500 passengers, it is possible that Avia received as many as 4 or 5 complaints per flight. The author unfairly trivializes this record. Moreover, the author fails to compare Avia’s record with those of its competitors. It is possible that a particular competitor received virtually no baggage-handling complaints last year. If so, Avia’s one percent complaint rate might be significant enough to motivate customers to switch to another airline.
In conclusion, the author has failed to demonstrate that a review of the baggage-handling procedures at Avia Airlines is not needed to maintain or increase the number of Avia’s passengers. To strengthen the argument, the author must at the very least provide affirmative evidence that most Avia passengers last year were indeed happy with baggage-handling procedures. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the numbers of Avia passengers per flight last year and about the baggage-handling records of Avia’s competitors.
